Leaked excerpts of Hillary's speeches

Donald Trump's campaign is over and he might go down as one of the biggest losers in presidential history.

Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.

But as you are likely aware, internal emails of the Clinton team featuring analysis and excerpts of transcripts of speeches given by Hillary have been leaked.

Here's some links to commentary at Vox and Slate, and straight forward reporting at the Huffpost.

Her private comments, largely speaking to elites, reveal a verysharp disconnect with the progressive agenda.

I would like to comment on certain policy points that should be important to Progressives who are out to effect change, not just cheer-lead for celebrity elite.

1. HRC endorsed the Simpson-Bowles and deficit reduction plans, in general, before Morgan Stanley in 2013. Hopefully, the banks and Hillary have learned something since that time. The Deficit Owl position is in the ascendancy and it is supported by growing elite opinion among central bankers around the globe. If she actually believes in "evidence-based decision making," then she owes it to herself to fly to the University of Missouri at Kansas City to speak with the economics department.

2. HRC clearly was not going to talk about fraud in front of Wall Street audiences simply for the fact that she wanted to be invited back into the room. The inability of Democratic politicians to talk about financial fraud is mortifying. They are held hostage by a private capital primary. Even if Hillary actually understood the totality of problems with our financial, fiscal, and monetary system(s), she wouldn't be in the position she is in today if she tried to advance those ideas. She has clearly 'worked' or 'hustled' the system to her advantage. We pray and hope she uses those skills she has adapted for us when in office. But given the behavior of past presidents and elites, one cannot expect much. Further context of Hillary's fealty to Wall Street does not inspire any confidence.

3. HRC essentially complained that that the revolving door between public and private officials was too regulated, and that there was a bias against successful people preventing them from participating more fully in public life. That's 'cry me a river' 1% talk and shows further just how far disconnected she admittedly has become. More robust restrictions at the highest levels of the revolving doors between the government and private sector are needed. If industry input is needed in government, it can be derived in other more ethical ways than tangled webs of conflict of interest.

Donald Trump's campaign is over and he might go down as one of the biggest losers in presidential history.

Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.

But as you are likely aware, internal emails of the Clinton team featuring analysis and excerpts of transcripts of speeches given by Hillary have been leaked.

Here's some links to commentary at Vox and Slate, and straight forward reporting at the Huffpost.

Her private comments, largely speaking to elites, reveal a verysharp disconnect with the progressive agenda.

I would like to comment on certain policy points that should be important to Progressives who are out to effect change, not just cheer-lead for celebrity elite.

1. HRC endorsed the Simpson-Bowles and deficit reduction plans, in general, before Morgan Stanley in 2013. Hopefully, the banks and Hillary have learned something since that time. The Deficit Owl position is in the ascendancy and it is supported by growing elite opinion among central bankers around the globe. If she actually believes in "evidence-based decision making," then she owes it to herself to fly to the University of Missouri at Kansas City to speak with the economics department.

2. HRC clearly was not going to talk about fraud in front of Wall Street audiences simply for the fact that she wanted to be invited back into the room. The inability of Democratic politicians to talk about financial fraud is mortifying. They are held hostage by a private capital primary. Even if Hillary actually understood the totality of problems with our financial, fiscal, and monetary system(s), she wouldn't be in the position she is in today if she tried to advance those ideas. She has clearly 'worked' or 'hustled' the system to her advantage. We pray and hope she uses those skills she has adapted for us when in office. But given the behavior of past presidents and elites, one cannot expect much. Further context of Hillary's fealty to Wall Street does not inspire any confidence.

3. HRC essentially complained that that the revolving door between public and private officials was too regulated, and that there was a bias against successful people preventing them from participating more fully in public life. That's 'cry me a river' 1% talk and shows further just how far disconnected she admittedly has become. More robust restrictions at the highest levels of the revolving doors between the government and private sector are needed. If industry input is needed in government, it can be derived in other more ethical ways than tangled webs of conflict of interest.

Carlitos, as I said in some other threads, both these candidates are the worst we ever had. Both have enormous baggage.

In an country with about 350 million people you would think we should be able to find some real qualified people. But of course without proper education here and brains then you get this situation. People vote for what they deserve.

Carlitos, I don't think Trump should be buried prematurely. As much as I am in favor of it, Teflon Don says stupid crap daily. He's completely forgiven daily. I will be more comfortable when the polls swing massively.

The issue with this "bombshell" is that it tells us what we already knew about Secretary Clinton. She is a pragmatist who understands how the system functions. She was the Senator of a state where Wall Street is located and had to work with the financial industry on a near daily basis. Is anyone honestly surprised that she isn't constantly attacking them for the sky not being blue on a specific day?

Dutch Wrote: Carlitos, as I said in some other threads, both these candidates are the worst we ever had. Both have enormous baggage.

In an country with about 350 million people you would think we should be able to find some real qualified people. But of course without proper education here and brains then you get this situation. People vote for what they deserve.

You obviously know absolutely nothing about American history if you are convinced that these are the worst candidates we have ever had. Seriously man. Get a grip.

Dutch Wrote: Carlitos, as I said in some other threads, both these candidates are the worst we ever had. Both have enormous baggage.

In an country with about 350 million people you would think we should be able to find some real qualified people. But of course without proper education here and brains then you get this situation. People vote for what they deserve.

You obviously know absolutely nothing about American history if you are convinced that these are the worst candidates we have ever had. Seriously man. Get a grip.

Who cares about the only 300 year history here; Europe and Asia as well South America had history's of thousands of years and can teach the US a thing or two including you. You're an real "island" inhabitant and blindly believes in Hillary types. Napoleon or Ceasar would die laughing if they would be still alive about the circus here.

Dutch Wrote: Carlitos, as I said in some other threads, both these candidates are the worst we ever had. Both have enormous baggage.

In an country with about 350 million people you would think we should be able to find some real qualified people. But of course without proper education here and brains then you get this situation. People vote for what they deserve.

You obviously know absolutely nothing about American history if you are convinced that these are the worst candidates we have ever had. Seriously man. Get a grip.

Who cares about the only 300 year history here; Europe and Asia as well South America had history's of thousands of years and can teach the US a thing or two including you. You're an real "island" inhabitant and blindly believes in Hillary types. Napoleon or Ceasar would die laughing if they would be still alive about the circus here.

You wrote "both these candidates are the worst we ever had." I responded that you obviously know nothing about American history if you are convinced that's the case.

I also don't understand what responding to your hyperbole by stating you are woefully ignorant of American history has to do with island mentality, Napoleon, or Caesar.

I also don't understand what any of this has to do with Hillary Clinton's hacked emails.

Dutch Wrote: Carlitos, as I said in some other threads, both these candidates are the worst we ever had. Both have enormous baggage.

In an country with about 350 million people you would think we should be able to find some real qualified people. But of course without proper education here and brains then you get this situation. People vote for what they deserve.

You obviously know absolutely nothing about American history if you are convinced that these are the worst candidates we have ever had. Seriously man. Get a grip.

Who cares about the only 300 year history here; Europe and Asia as well South America had history's of thousands of years and can teach the US a thing or two including you. You're an real "island" inhabitant and blindly believes in Hillary types. Napoleon or Ceasar would die laughing if they would be still alive about the circus here.

You wrote "both these candidates are the worst we ever had." I responded that you obviously know nothing about American history if you are convinced that's the case.

I also don't understand what responding to your hyperbole by stating you are woefully ignorant of American history has to do with island mentality, Napoleon, or Caesar.

I also don't understand what any of this has to do with Hillary Clinton's hacked emails.

Sure, I'm not the only one who says that "both" are the worst we ever had; plenty of people vote therefore on third party candidates; see the piece what Schmidt wrote about that, Sure Hillary is the best of the two, but not "super". I'll vote for her , so don't worry about me or the American history. But suggest you learn to read.

Donald Trump's campaign is over and he might go down as one of the biggest losers in presidential history.

Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.

But as you are likely aware, internal emails of the Clinton team featuring analysis and excerpts of transcripts of speeches given by Hillary have been leaked.

Here's some links to commentary at Vox and Slate, and straight forward reporting at the Huffpost.

Her private comments, largely speaking to elites, reveal a verysharp disconnect with the progressive agenda.

I would like to comment on certain policy points that should be important to Progressives who are out to effect change, not just cheer-lead for celebrity elite.

1. HRC endorsed the Simpson-Bowles and deficit reduction plans, in general, before Morgan Stanley in 2013. Hopefully, the banks and Hillary have learned something since that time. The Deficit Owl position is in the ascendancy and it is supported by growing elite opinion among central bankers around the globe. If she actually believes in "evidence-based decision making," then she owes it to herself to fly to the University of Missouri at Kansas City to speak with the economics department.

2. HRC clearly was not going to talk about fraud in front of Wall Street audiences simply for the fact that she wanted to be invited back into the room. The inability of Democratic politicians to talk about financial fraud is mortifying. They are held hostage by a private capital primary. Even if Hillary actually understood the totality of problems with our financial, fiscal, and monetary system(s), she wouldn't be in the position she is in today if she tried to advance those ideas. She has clearly 'worked' or 'hustled' the system to her advantage. We pray and hope she uses those skills she has adapted for us when in office. But given the behavior of past presidents and elites, one cannot expect much. Further context of Hillary's fealty to Wall Street does not inspire any confidence.

3. HRC essentially complained that that the revolving door between public and private officials was too regulated, and that there was a bias against successful people preventing them from participating more fully in public life. That's 'cry me a river' 1% talk and shows further just how far disconnected she admittedly has become. More robust restrictions at the highest levels of the revolving doors between the government and private sector are needed. If industry input is needed in government, it can be derived in other more ethical ways than tangled webs of conflict of interest.

Carlitos -- Getting back onto the topic, I want to thank you for sharing these three articles. The Huffington Post articles provides the most comprehensive listings of Hillary Clinton's actual words and therefore I spent more time reading it. I appreciated being able to read the full context of various statements that have been cherry picked by others in the media.

The Vox and Slate articles provide good opinions, and likewise we appreciate your opinions as well, Carlitos. So I'll provide a few of mine here to compliment those. For anyone, who hasn't read the articles (in particularly the full transcripts in the HP) then I would encourage you do so we can have an intellectual discussion (instead of emotional hyperbole).

My first impression is that Hillary Clinton comes across as highly knowledgeable on the various topics and as an astute politician. If I had been in her shoes navigating the same political hostile environment as she has, I would probably have made many of the same statements. She is a moderately liberal politician that has been able to work both sides of the aisle to get things done, and often that has required some secrecy knowing how our sensationalist for profit media operates. I like her analogy on deal making:

I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think ― I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it’s like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what’s going to work and what’s not going to work. -- [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

I think that defines Hillary Clinton in a positive way. Her view on politics will not sit right with my liberal friends nor many on the right where the word "compromise" is absolutely forbidden in any discussion. But it is reality and it is the way real progress is made.

There is much more to comment on, but I'll put this out for discussion first. More to come.

TJ, Not me said it might not be over. Schmidt, Your support and alignment with Hillary is far more admirable than the thoughtfulness given by probably 95% of the population. Most of the people here are probably in the top 1% of the five percent. In view of that I don't think you are going to change views held by very many people here. You can define her as a world class politician and international power player which she is and her credentialed accomplishments are uundeniable. But she is best defined by her own words of having dual positions.

Donald Trump's campaign is over and he might go down as one of the biggest losers in presidential history.

Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.

But as you are likely aware, internal emails of the Clinton team featuring analysis and excerpts of transcripts of speeches given by Hillary have been leaked.

Here's some links to commentary at Vox and Slate, and straight forward reporting at the Huffpost.

Her private comments, largely speaking to elites, reveal a verysharp disconnect with the progressive agenda.

I would like to comment on certain policy points that should be important to Progressives who are out to effect change, not just cheer-lead for celebrity elite.

1. HRC endorsed the Simpson-Bowles and deficit reduction plans, in general, before Morgan Stanley in 2013. Hopefully, the banks and Hillary have learned something since that time. The Deficit Owl position is in the ascendancy and it is supported by growing elite opinion among central bankers around the globe. If she actually believes in "evidence-based decision making," then she owes it to herself to fly to the University of Missouri at Kansas City to speak with the economics department.

2. HRC clearly was not going to talk about fraud in front of Wall Street audiences simply for the fact that she wanted to be invited back into the room. The inability of Democratic politicians to talk about financial fraud is mortifying. They are held hostage by a private capital primary. Even if Hillary actually understood the totality of problems with our financial, fiscal, and monetary system(s), she wouldn't be in the position she is in today if she tried to advance those ideas. She has clearly 'worked' or 'hustled' the system to her advantage. We pray and hope she uses those skills she has adapted for us when in office. But given the behavior of past presidents and elites, one cannot expect much. Further context of Hillary's fealty to Wall Street does not inspire any confidence.

3. HRC essentially complained that that the revolving door between public and private officials was too regulated, and that there was a bias against successful people preventing them from participating more fully in public life. That's 'cry me a river' 1% talk and shows further just how far disconnected she admittedly has become. More robust restrictions at the highest levels of the revolving doors between the government and private sector are needed. If industry input is needed in government, it can be derived in other more ethical ways than tangled webs of conflict of interest.

Carlitos -- Getting back onto the topic, I want to thank you for sharing these three articles. The Huffington Post articles provides the most comprehensive listings of Hillary Clinton's actual words and therefore I spent more time reading it. I appreciated being able to read the full context of various statements that have been cherry picked by others in the media.

The Vox and Slate articles provide good opinions, and likewise we appreciate your opinions as well, Carlitos. So I'll provide a few of mine here to compliment those. For anyone, who hasn't read the articles (in particularly the full transcripts in the HP) then I would encourage you do so we can have an intellectual discussion (instead of emotional hyperbole).

My first impression is that Hillary Clinton comes across as highly knowledgeable on the various topics and as an astute politician. If I had been in her shoes navigating the same political hostile environment as she has, I would probably have made many of the same statements. She is a moderately liberal politician that has been able to work both sides of the aisle to get things done, and often that has required some secrecy knowing how our sensationalist for profit media operates. I like her analogy on deal making:

I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think ― I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it’s like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what’s going to work and what’s not going to work. -- [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

I think that defines Hillary Clinton in a positive way. Her view on politics will not sit right with my liberal friends nor many on the right where the word "compromise" is absolutely forbidden in any discussion. But it is reality and it is the way real progress is made.

There is much more to comment on, but I'll put this out for discussion first. More to come.

Schmidt,

The only thing I really care about from that paragraph is the "evidence-based decision making" part. But I will say this, good progressive public policy positions do not have to be hidden from the public.

Her fealty to Wall Street makes her dangerous to the progressive agenda. She is no longer the Senator from New York. So her pandering has less to do with local politics, and more to do with shameless campaign funding and winning corporate media support. Policy is for sale. That is reality. That is how things are done. What's different is the means. She didn't have to give these speeches. They were a choice. Might have seemed like good strategy to set up her 2016 run, but others have ran for president without doing stuff like this, without compromising themselves like this.